Contents

Detective Inspector Kay Wallace surrounded by computers, mobile phones and digital storage devices seized from the homes of suspected paedophiles. Online grooming of youngsters via chat rooms and webcams is an area COST team officers are encountering more and more.

To establish a good relationship with a child and the child's family, child groomers might do several things: They might try to gain the child's or parents' trust by befriending them, with the goal of easy access to the child.[7][8][9] A trusting relationship with the family means the child's parents are less likely to believe potential accusations.[7] Child groomers might look for opportunities to have time alone with the child, which can be done by offering to babysit; the groomers may also invite the child for sleepovers, for opportunistic bed sharing.[10] They might give gifts or money to the child in exchange for sexual contact, or for no apparent reason.[10][11] Commonly, they show pornography to the child, or talk about sexual topics with the child, hoping to make it easy for the child to accept such acts, thus normalizing the behavior.[12][13][14] They may also engage in hugging, kissing, or other physical contact, even when the child does not want it.[10][15]

Suspected offenders have used the so-called "fantasy defense," the argument that they were only expressing fantasies and not plans of future behavior, to defend actions such as online communication.[16] In the U.S., case law draws a distinction between those two and some people accused of "grooming" have successfully used this defense.[17]

Sexual grooming of children also occurs on the Internet. Some abusers will pose as children online and make arrangements to meet with them in person. Facebook has been involved in controversy as to whether or not it takes enough precautions. Jim Gamble, leader of the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre (CEOP) of the United Kingdom, stated in April 2010 that his office received 292 complaints about Facebook users in 2009 yet "None of these complaints came direct from Facebook." A spokesman for Facebook responded to complaints by meeting CEOP directly in person, and saying, "We take the issue of safety very seriously."[18]

In 2003, MSN implemented chat room restrictions to help protect children from adults seeking sexual conversations with them.[19] In 2005, Yahoo! chat rooms were investigated by the New York State attorney general's office for allowing users to create rooms whose names suggested that they were being used for this purpose. That October, Yahoo! agreed to "implement policies and procedures designed to ensure" that such rooms would not be allowed.[20]

Some vigilante organizations use operatives posing as underage teens on the internet to identify potential child molesters and to turn the information over to the police and the courts. The news program Dateline NBC featured the recurring segment To Catch a Predator, based on documenting such activities. Similar groups include Perverted-Justice, Dark Justice and Creep Catcher.

Multiple computer programs have been developed to help identify grooming and warn parents.[21] Such software analyses chat rooms and other instant messaging logs for activity that may identify grooming or other potentially suspicious activities. Some of the technologies have been adapted to social networking services and ISPs.[22]

Sexual grooming of children over the internet is most prevalent (99% of cases) amongst the 13–17 age group, particularly among 13–14 year old children (48%). The majority of them are girls. The majority of the victimization occurs with mobile phone support. Children and teenagers with behavioral issues such as "high attention seeking" have a much higher risk than others.[23]

Localised grooming is a form of sexual exploitation – previously referred to as ‘on street grooming’ in the media - where children have been groomed and sexually exploited by an offender, having initially met in a location outside their home. This location is usually in public, such as a park, cinema, on the street or at a friend’s house. Offenders often act together, establishing a relationship with a child or children before sexually exploiting them. Some victims of ‘street grooming’ may believe that the offender is in fact an older ‘boyfriend’; these victims introduce their peers to the offender group who might then go on to be sexually exploited as well. Abuse may occur at a number of locations within a region and on several occasions. ‘Localised grooming’ was the term used by CEOP in the intelligence requests issued to police forces and other service agencies in order to define the data we wished to receive.

Because the grooming of children (although it was not known at the time under those terms) in the UK had been proscribed as early as the 1910 Convention on the White Slave trade, the idea of localised grooming was coined around 1990. A television documentary was broadcast in August 2003, in which reporters uncovered details of an 18-month police and social services investigation into allegations that young British Asian men were targeting under-age girls for sex, drugs and prostitution in the West Yorkshire town of Keighley.[24] The Leeds-based Coalition for the Removal of Pimping (Crop) has sought to bring this behaviour to national attention since at least 2010.[25] In November 2010, the Rotherham sex grooming case saw various convictions of child sexual abusers. In 2012, various members of the Rochdale sex trafficking gang were convicted on various counts. In 2016, following the largest child sexual exploitation investigation in the United Kingdom – "bigger than high profile cases in Rochdale and Rotherham,"[26] 18 men in the Halifax child sex abuse ring case were convicted to over 175 years in prison.[27]
The Home Affairs Select Committee investigated in 2013 Child sexual exploitation and the response to localised grooming.[28]

According to Inside Out London and BBC Inside Out investigations, young British Sikh girls living outside Britain (such as in America) were (and are) being particularly preyed upon by men who pretend(ed) to be Sikhs in order to seduce and groom them.[29]

Australian Criminal Code Act 1995 section 474.26 and 474.27 prohibits the use of a "carrier service" to communicate with the intent to procure a person under the age of 16, or expose such a person to any indecent matter for the purposes of grooming. The various states and territories have similar laws, some of which use a different age (for example the victim only has to be under 16 in Queensland). Such laws across Australia were recently strengthened in the wake of the murder of Carly Ryan.

In Costa Rica, since April 2013, the Criminal Code section 167 bis, makes it an offence to seduce a child by electronic means. With penalties from one to 3 years of imprisonment for a person that, by any means attempts to establish an erotic or sexual communication with a child under 15 years old.

On 1 January 2010, section 248e was added to the Dutch Criminal Code making (online) grooming of a child under 16 years old illegal. The maximum punishment is 2 years of imprisonment or a fine of the fourth category.[32]

The law in New Zealand states that it is a crime to meet up or intend to meet up with the intention of performing an unlawful sexual act with a person under 16 years. This is recorded in Section 131B of the Crimes Act 1961.[33] This section is labelled ‘Meeting Young Person Following Sexual Grooming, etc’. Any person charged is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 7 years.

In England and Wales, sections 14 and 15 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 make it an offense to arrange a meeting with a child under 16, for oneself or someone else, with the intent of sexually abusing the child. The meeting itself is also criminalized. The offence carries a maximum sentence of 10 years imprisonment, and automatic barring of the offender working with children or vulnerable adults.[34]

The Protection of Children and Prevention of Sexual Offences (Scotland) Act 2005 introduced a similar provision for Scotland.[35]

Thus, a crime may be committed even without the actual meeting taking place and without the child being involved in the meeting (for example, if a police officer has taken over the contact and pretends to be that child). In R v T (2005) EWCA Crim 2681, the appellant, aged 43, had pretended to befriend a nine-year-old girl, but had done very little with her before she became suspicious and reported his approaches. He had a number of previous convictions (including one for rape) and was described as a "relentless, predatory paedophile". The Court of Appeal upheld a sentence of eight years' imprisonment with an extended license period of two years.

Laws focused on 'grooming' were first enforced federally against Alabamian Jerry Alan Penton in 2009. Penton received 20 years in prison for that action coupled with another 20 for his distribution and possession of child pornography.[37]

Kim-Kwang Raymond Choo (2009). Online Child Grooming: A Literature Review on the Misuse of Social Networking Sites for Grooming Children for Sexual Offences. Australian Institute of Criminology. ISBN9781921185861.

Grooming Children for Sexual Molestation, written by Gregory M. Weber, the Assistant Attorney General for the State of Wisconsin who specializes in the prosecution of crimes committed against children.